lang/rust: Update to 1.48.0

[mikael]

Summary

• Force rebuild all consumers to catch regressions

Changes: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/stable/RELEASES.md#version-1480-2020-11-19

Test Plan

11.4 amd64 ok ; consumers : ok
12.2 i386: ok ; all consumers ok ; runtime ok (firefox/alacritty)
13.0 amd64: ok ; all consumers ok
13aarch64
13armv6
13armv7
powerpc64 elfv1
powerpc64 elfv2
powerpc64le

[jbeich]

Can you rename files/patch-packed_simd to files/patch-bug1667736 in www/cliqz, www/firefox, www/firefox-esr, mail/thunderbird? I'm not asking to switch to upstream version but simply annotate when the patch is safe to remove and where to track backports.

[mikael]

Fix ppc patches (reported / submitted by bdragon)
rename files/patch-packed_simd to files/patch-bug1667736 in www/cliqz, www/firefox, www/firefox-esr, mail/thunderbird

[jbeich]

net-p2p/openethereum needs PORTREVISION bump (was lost during the last rebase).

[pkubaj]

Doesn't apply on fresh ports tree:

C         devel/cargo-c/Makefile
>         rejected hunk @@ -2,6 +2,7 @@
C         lang/rust/files/patch-compiler_rustc__target_src_spec_i686__unknown__freebsd.rs
>         rejected hunk @@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
C         lang/rust/files/powerpc64-elfv1/patch-compiler_rustc__llvm_build.rs
>         rejected hunk @@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
C         lang/rust/files/powerpc64-elfv2/patch-compiler_rustc__target_src_abi_call_powerpc64.rs
>         rejected hunk @@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
C         lang/rust/files/powerpc64-elfv2/patch-compiler_rustc__target_src_spec_powerpc64__unknown__freebsd.rs
>         rejected hunk @@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
C         lang/rust/files/powerpc64le/patch-compiler_rustc__target_src_spec_mod.rs
>         rejected hunk @@ -1,5 +1,5 @@

[bdragon]

In D27293#610225, @pkubaj wrote:

Doesn't apply on fresh ports tree:

C         devel/cargo-c/Makefile
>         rejected hunk @@ -2,6 +2,7 @@
C         lang/rust/files/patch-compiler_rustc__target_src_spec_i686__unknown__freebsd.rs
>         rejected hunk @@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
C         lang/rust/files/powerpc64-elfv1/patch-compiler_rustc__llvm_build.rs
>         rejected hunk @@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
C         lang/rust/files/powerpc64-elfv2/patch-compiler_rustc__target_src_abi_call_powerpc64.rs
>         rejected hunk @@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
C         lang/rust/files/powerpc64-elfv2/patch-compiler_rustc__target_src_spec_powerpc64__unknown__freebsd.rs
>         rejected hunk @@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
C         lang/rust/files/powerpc64le/patch-compiler_rustc__target_src_spec_mod.rs
>         rejected hunk @@ -1,5 +1,5 @@

Yeah, that's just a side effect of moved files. I worked around this on my end when patching by pre-moving the changed patch files.

I don't know why the uploaded patch isn't able to do this automatically, I think it might have just been uploaded with the wrong options or needs to be applied in a certain manner. It's not showing up as a delete/add like usual though.

[bdragon]

In D27293#610389, @bdragon wrote:

In D27293#610225, @pkubaj wrote:

Doesn't apply on fresh ports tree:

C         devel/cargo-c/Makefile
>         rejected hunk @@ -2,6 +2,7 @@
C         lang/rust/files/patch-compiler_rustc__target_src_spec_i686__unknown__freebsd.rs
>         rejected hunk @@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
C         lang/rust/files/powerpc64-elfv1/patch-compiler_rustc__llvm_build.rs
>         rejected hunk @@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
C         lang/rust/files/powerpc64-elfv2/patch-compiler_rustc__target_src_abi_call_powerpc64.rs
>         rejected hunk @@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
C         lang/rust/files/powerpc64-elfv2/patch-compiler_rustc__target_src_spec_powerpc64__unknown__freebsd.rs
>         rejected hunk @@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
C         lang/rust/files/powerpc64le/patch-compiler_rustc__target_src_spec_mod.rs
>         rejected hunk @@ -1,5 +1,5 @@

Yeah, that's just a side effect of moved files. I worked around this on my end when patching by pre-moving the changed patch files.

I don't know why the uploaded patch isn't able to do this automatically, I think it might have just been uploaded with the wrong options or needs to be applied in a certain manner. It's not showing up as a delete/add like usual though.

Actually, I take that back. Not sure why there's conflicts in some of those.